Holm worked for M & A Acquisition Corp. (M & A). He had a workplace injury and was placed on a medical leave of absence. While Holm was on medical leave, he went to the office to make a payment against a loan on his retirement account, and a human resources employee notified him that he was selected for a random drug test. Holm tested positive for marijuana, and M & A discharged him based on the test result. Holm applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The hearing officer awarded him benefits, and a panel of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel) upheld the decision.

On appeal, M & A contended that the Panel erred by limiting its analysis to CRS § 8-73- 108(5)(e)(IX.5), a single disqualifying subsection of the statute, and by expressly declining to consider other potentially applicable disqualifying subsections. CRS § 8-73-108(5)(e) lists 25 subsections describing possible circumstances or reasons supporting unemployment benefit disqualification, and the statute contemplates that hearing officers and the Panel will consider all potentially applicable qualifying and disqualifying provisions. Here, the Panel erred by limiting its analysis solely to subsection (IX.5).

The order was set aside and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant pleaded guilty to escape and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

On appeal, the district attorney contended that the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the mandatory minimum sentence was four years, under CRS § 18-1.3-401(1)(a)(V)(A.1), rather than eight years under CRS § 18-1.3-401(8)(a)(IV). The sentencing range for a class 3 felony is four to 12 years. The presence of one or more “extraordinary aggravating circumstances” requires an enhanced minimum sentence, which is eight years for a class 3 felony. However, the enhancement provision does not apply to the crime of escape.  Rather, it applies to other felonies committed while under confinement or committed after escape from confinement. Therefore, the trial court acted within its discretion in sentencing defendant to four years’ imprisonment.

The sentence was affirmed.